Wtf..

[*Nately120*]

(03-09-2016, 10:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing extreme about these examples.  They are just being realistic.  When you look at all free agents it is clear that the big deals fail to work out much more often than they work out.  Form '00 to '05 only EIGHT PERCENT of free agents that signed 5 year or longer contracts played out the full deal, and the average number of years played on a five year deal was LESS THAN THREE.

People claim that free agency is not as big of a gamble as the draft because "you know what you are getting".  And while the success rate for free agents is probably better than the draft it is far from a sure thing and you are gambling with tens of millions of dollars with a free agent instead of hundreds of thousands with draft picks.

I don't disagree entirely, but that guy cited the Browns and the Cowboys.  The Browns are as much "proof" that building through the draft is stupid as they are proof that free agency is stupid, so I don't think the Browns should ever be used as a comparison.  The Cowboys had their starting QB in pieces most of the year.  I think the Bengals could have gone 4-12 with Matt Cassell and Brandon Weeden under center, too.  Again, not about free agents.

Every year there will be teams who are bad who HAVE to overpay for free agents (because they are bad teams) that are used as examples that free agency doesn't work.  

The Jaguars have like a zillion dollars in space they MUST fill this year, and while they are on the upswing I'm sure they'll sign some big FA's and then win 5-8 games and provide further "proof" free agents make teams worse for years to come.  The Rams are probably going to start the season with Case Keenum as their QB and Fisher hasn't cracked what....7 wins there yet.  They'll sign some FA and THAT will be the reason they only won 7 games, etc.

I'm just saying people tend to put the cart before the horse...desperate and bad teams overpay free agents, signing free agents doesn't make a team desperate and bad, per se.